Here's why that's a good thing

By Reuben Brody

Share This

Because Arnette has summited Everest multiple times. Because he's the oldest American to have climbed K2. Because Outside Magazine considers him the foremost expert on mountaineering.

And he estimates the average cost of ascending the world's highest peak atabout $45,000, or roughly the cost of a brand new car — a lot of money for one trip. A memorable trip? Yes. But still a lot of dough, and that’s on a shoestring budget. If you’re doing it with extra safety measures and assistance, it can run as high as $115,000.

It’s easy for most of us at home to roll our eyes at all of these costs because, damn, climbing Everest seems like a wealthy man’s game. Visions of Silicon Valley elites pervade the imagination.

Is that right? Should experiencing one of mountaineering's great feats be limited to the uber rich?

Personally, I think the exorbitant cost is a good thing. It makes for a high barrier of entrance, which could prove to be a saving grace for the world’s tallest mountain. If it were easier, more people would do it, and Everest would no doubt be worse off for it. Raising the costs ensures that fewer people go and safety measures are taken seriously.

And no matter the price, climbing Everest isn't a week at the Ritz. It's a serious undertaking for serious adventurers. You’re there for at least six weeks, and there’s no rushing it unless you’re a professional mountain climber, in which case, you’re likely being sponsored to do it.

Warren Buffett once said that he doesn’t skimp on air travel, which makes sense ... given that he doesn’t have to. His point, though, is why cut costs when the possibility of disaster is great?